SH. TARUN MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In this appeal the assessee challenged the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.

None appeared on behalf of assessee despite notifying the date of hearing.

After hearing Ld. DR, we are of the view the matter requires reconsideration at the level of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that assessee sought adjournment but none appeared on the date of hearing and no written submission was filed. Ld. CIT(A) in absence of assessee dismissed the appeal of assessee without passing reasoned order. According to Section 250(6) of I.T. Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention reasons for decision in the appellate order while deciding the appeal of assessee. Therefore even if assessee may or may not appear before Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order giving reasons for decision in the order. The order of Ld. CIT(A) did not contained any reasons for decision. Therefore same cannot be sustained in law.

We accordingly set aside the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with direction to redecide the appeal of assessee on merits by giving reasons for decisions in the appellate orders by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.